_Complex constant

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Laurent Deniau, Nov 23, 2006.

  1. Is there any way to create a constant of type double _Complex without
    including <complex.h>?

    Why _Complex_I is a macro an not an implementation-defined constant?


    a+, ld.
    Laurent Deniau, Nov 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    "An I suffix to designate imaginary constants is not required, as
    multiplication by I provides a sufficiently convenient and more
    generally useful notation for imaginary terms."

    So unless you count implementation-specific extensions, or complex
    constants with an imaginary part of zero, then no, probably not.
    Constants can't be used in constant expressions.

    #include <complex.h>
    const double complex i = I; /* or equivalently, _Complex_I */
    double complex v = 1 + 2 * i; /* error: initializer element is not
    constant */
    Guest, Nov 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Right. By specifying 'implementation-defined constant' I was thinking to
    a special constant like null pointer constant. Something that would
    expand to a compiler constant like __builtin_Complex_I for example.

    My problem is that even with complex.h included, gcc (4.1.2) gives a
    warning in c99 pedantic mode for the code:

    const double complex i = _Complex_I;

    warning: imaginary constants are a GCC extension

    in complex.h we find (as you mention it):

    #define _Complex_I (__extension__ 1.0iF)

    It seems that this warning is not appropriate, but gcc cannot know with
    this definition. Any clue?


    a+, ld.
    Laurent Deniau, Nov 23, 2006
  4. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    Well, that's basically what _Complex_I is required to do already. (Not
    explicitly by the standard, but I can't imagine how an implementation
    would support it otherwise.) As you show below, GCC uses a compiler
    constant itself.
    That's a long-standing bug in GCC:

    There's not much else to do but either ignore the warning, or use a
    different compiler.
    Guest, Nov 23, 2006
  5. Constants can (e.g., 42 and 1.23 are constants); const-qualified
    objects cannot.
    Keith Thompson, Nov 23, 2006
  6. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    Right, sorry, I (incorrectly) thought a different meaning of "constant"
    was used.
    Guest, Nov 23, 2006
  7. That's a very easy mistake to make, since "const" and "constant" mean
    two very different things in C.
    Keith Thompson, Nov 23, 2006
  8. It brings me to another question. I do a lot of calculation with complex
    numbers (making the above warning painful unless I declare my own global
    const-qualified _Complex_I) and up to now I was using my own complex
    number lib (or gsl lib sometimes) mainly because I wanted the principal
    branch of some functions to be compliant with matlab results. I am
    planning to move my code to C99 _Complex, but is it widely supported and
    conform to the standard by actual compilers? Do you know where I could
    find any paper, link or document about comparison of compilers
    compiliance to C99, including complex number? Or do think that it would
    be wiser to stay with lib gsl for example?


    a+, ld.
    Laurent Deniau, Nov 24, 2006
  9. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    If you wish for your users to be able to compile your code (it sounds
    as if you do), I'd first like to point out they don't need to compile
    it with GCC's -pedantic option, so this is hardly a problem for them.
    That said, ignoring GCC, Intel's and Sun's compilers claim to support
    it, and for Windows platforms, lcc-win32 and Pelles C are likely to
    support it (although I haven't tested this).
    No idea, sorry.
    That depends on your needs. I don't know what sort of code you've
    written, but another possibility is to support both, and use only one
    (with C99 support to be detected by your build process). This means
    your code can be portable to C90 implementations, yet you don't
    introduce needless incompatibilities between your own lib and C99's
    standard library.
    Guest, Nov 24, 2006
  10. Laurent Deniau

    CBFalconer Guest

    On the contrary, without -ansi -pedantic gcc isn't a C compiler.
    CBFalconer, Nov 24, 2006
  11. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    I'll pretend you said -std=c99 -pedantic, and that GCC with those
    options conforms to C99. But the users don't need a conforming
    compiler. They need a compiler that correctly translates conforming
    programs. Without -pedantic, GCC accepts some invalid programs, but it
    doesn't reject valid programs.
    Guest, Nov 24, 2006
  12. It is hard to imagine a more dumb, stupid, and thoroughly incorrect
    Kenny McCormack, Nov 24, 2006
  13. My code requires C99 anyway (a moderately compliant compiler) for many
    reasons (variadic macros, compound litteral and long long are the most
    important features I need). But it doesn't means that I should blindly
    trust the compiler implementation, even if it claims to be C99 (at least
    by the build process detection which cannot go on the compiler's web
    site and the list of incomplete features ;-) . Since _Complex must be
    have the same representation and alignment as double[2], some
    alternative may exist that would solve part of the portability problem.

    a+, ld.
    Laurent Deniau, Nov 24, 2006
  14. Laurent Deniau

    CBFalconer Guest

    gcc with -c99 is neither fish nor fowl. It does not fully comply
    with C99, especially when using a C90 library. With -ansi
    -pedantic the user is at least warned that some constructs are not
    portable and need to be isolated in a system dependant module.
    Examples are the z printf modifier, variable arrays, and _Bool.
    Also the use of // comments.
    CBFalconer, Nov 24, 2006
  15. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    Please explain to me the point of suggesting invoking gcc in
    C90-conforming mode in a thread asking about _Complex.
    Guest, Nov 25, 2006
  16. Harald van D?k said:
    Please explain to me the point of using gcc when clearly what is actually
    needed, for _Complex to be considered anything other than an off-topic
    extension, is a C99-conforming compiler (which gcc very definitely isn't).
    Richard Heathfield, Nov 25, 2006
  17. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    Yes, gcc is not a conforming compiler. However, code written in the
    common subset of C99 and what gcc accepts is still on topic here.
    Guest, Nov 25, 2006
  18. Harald van D?k said:
    But _Complex is not within that common subset, because gcc does *not* claim
    to provide complex or imaginary support in line with the requirements of
    C99. See http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html if need be.
    Richard Heathfield, Nov 25, 2006
  19. Laurent Deniau

    Guest Guest

    That's a fair point, but what it proves is that there are *some*
    (actually, very few) uses of _Complex that are outside of that common
    subset, not that all uses of it are.
    Guest, Nov 25, 2006
  20. Harald van D?k said:
    I think we've said all the right mantras now. :)
    Richard Heathfield, Nov 25, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.